I want to buy a telescope, what should I get?

I'm interested in getting into amateur astronomy after taking a couple of college courses in it but I don't know where to start with telescopes. Yes, I'm aware that I can get a perfectly good set of binoculars, but I don't want them. So stargazing arsians, what should I get?

I'm interested in getting into amateur astronomy after taking a couple of college courses in it but I don't know where to start with telescopes. Yes, I'm aware that I can get a perfectly good set of binoculars, but I don't want them. So stargazing arsians, what should I get?

Reeducated.

You're going to be disappointed if you haven't been using binoculars for a good while and are intimately familair with the sky through said binoculars.

I have a 114mm Newtonian telescope and a pair of 16x75mm binoculars. The binocs see far, far more use and I've had them for much longer.

See if you can find a local amateur astro organization. The Astronomical League is a good starting point. Most of them will have public "Star Parties" at various times throughout the year. In particular, expect to see a Messier marathon event in about a month from now (My local org is running theirs on Mar 23rd).

You can expect to see a lot of different 'scopes at these events, and most folks will be happy to let you look through them. In addition, the club may have equipment or facilities for use by the membership.

I started with a telescope, not binoculars. I got into telescopes quite cheap, though, with a Galileoscope. Add in a sub-$10 tripod, and eventually some inexpensive but much superior eyepieces, and I think it cost me $60 all told. With that, I could see the Red Spot on Jupiter and the Galilean moons and the polar ice caps on Mars. It is still awesome.

But it's got a small aperture and, being so light, is very wobbly. So I upgraded last year to a 4.5" reflector on an equatorial mount, and I enjoy that a lot. I can look at objects for as long as I like while tracking with the fine adjustment, which is a major plus over the original scope. That set me back another $250, but it came with some good eyepieces, plus I still have the extras I picked up for the Galileoscope that work fine (hooray for interchangeable parts).

Nothing against binoculars, I've never actually used them for looking at the sky. I bought the Galileoscope for the inexpensive novelty of it and enjoyed it.

It's been a long time since I've done astronomy as a hobby, but others are right that the standard advice is always to get some large-aperture binoculars first, as well as a good basic star atlas and learn the constellations, major important stars, etc.

You could go straight to a telescope if you want, but as others have said you should probably go to a viewing of the local amateur astronomy organization. All mid-sized or larger US cities have one usually with monthly viewing sessions somewhere a short distance out of town. Universities often have open viewing nights once a month, sometimes with pretty large scopes so don't expect to see those kinds of things if you buy one. Still even with a moderately large scope like a 16" one I think you'll be disappointed with what you actually get to see with your eye. It's still amazing when you stop and think about how far those photons have traveled and the technology that makes it possible to see distant objects with your naked eye. But since we're all conditioned to amazing space images from sci fi and documentaries and such, it can be shocking just how little you can see with a small telescope. If anything it will increase your respect for the amazing things early astronomers measured and learned with such simple instruments.

As to best bang for the buck the standard answer is a Dobsonian mounted Newtonian reflector, and the standard cheap one of those will have a 6" primary mirror. You can get fancier scopes with computer-tracking and all that, but if you're really interested in this as a hobby half of the fun is learning the sky and figuring out how to find objects you want to see.

Also you might be able to swing an 8" one as well especially if you go used. What really matters is aperture and not magnification except for the moon and the planets. If you want to see galaxies or nebulae and other "deep sky objects" you really need a bigger aperture; magnification plays little to no role. And light collecting power goes as the square of the radius/diameter, since it's about the area of the lens/mirror, so an 8" scope is actually (8/6)^2=16/9 or almost twice as much light collecting power as a 6" scope, a not-so-minor upgrade.

Really though there are lots of things you need to know if you're going to use a real telescope, you need to know how to collimate it, swap out lenses, etc. It's something that is best learned in person from a more-experienced practitioner, like any craft.

I'm going to be contrarian and say, for a starter, buy a small dob scope. If you expect going in that the only things you'll be able to see really well are going to be the planets and the moon, you'll be happy with it.

I bought an Orion XT4 (a 4-inch newtonian dob) for my son almost a decade ago. He wound up being not that interested, so I kind of took it over. I don't use it all that much, mostly because of light pollution and trees in the yard, but when I do get it out, the views it gives us (my wife got hooked after one look through it) of the moon and planets are pretty awesome for a small scope and non-optimal skies. It's possible to see Saturn's rings, Jupiter's Great Red Spot (which looks grey, but is still visible), and the Galilean satellites of each. Mars has an actual red disc, and the moon is absolutely spectacular -- it really does seem like I can reach out and touch it.

The only real issue is it's not quite tall enough for me to comfortably look through it. If I were doing it over again, I'd get the 6 instead, just for the extra height.

Also, more plusses for Google Sky, it's a game-changer. I had star charts, books, college astronomy classes, and even went to the local planetarium for a refresher so I could spot the major constellations, and it was still a royal pain in the ass to locate anything other than the moon on most nights. Now it's dead simple. Plus I can check in advance to see what's coming up later and figure out if it's worth hauling the scope outside or not.

Being the "proud" owner of a Simmons 60mm refractor and a Celestron Astromaster 114mm reflector, I'd say...get a decent pair of binoculars (low mag, wide aperture). You'll get better results up front, and you'll be able to navigate the sky easier. If you have excessively shaky hands you'll want to get something to steady them with. Most of the interesting structures in the sky are actually pretty big and benefit from a wider field of view.

Cheap scopes are a pain in the ass to work with. Wobbly focusing racks, substandard optics, loose mounts, crappy/badly aligned finderscopes (the LED finder on the Celestron is a fucking joke, and no you can't swap it out for something better, why would you ask?) all make for long and frustrating nights. Both of my scopes use equatorial mounts, which, being cheap, are difficult to get aligned properly (which is vital if you want to do any astrophotography). If you're not used to driving an EQ mount you'll spend half the night hunting instead of viewing. And when you do find something interesting, prepare to be a little underwhelmed. Compared to that APOD or Nat Geo cover, it's going to be pretty boring. The Orion Nebula is basically a greyish mist when viewed through a scope; our eyes just aren't sensitive enough to pick up all those wonderful colors and structures that long-term exposures can capture. Bigger scopes/better optics certainly help, but only up to a point.

My experience has taught me that unless I'm willing to drop serious coin on a telescope (and $400 is not serious), it just isn't worth the money. Now I have two scopes that I don't use.

MY FUCKING BINOCULARS ARE 75mm! Tell me that "Simmons" is code for "Made it myself"?

I bought it without doing any basic research first - I wanted a telescope, it was cheap, I knew nothing about aperture or focal length or anything else (and the Internet wasn't yet the font of all knowledge that it is now), and the box had pretty pictures on it.

"Underwhelming" is an understatement. It's great for looking at the Moon, but that's about it. At least has a real finderscope on it (impossible to align correctly, but at least it's a real finderscope). The Celestron has this absolutely useless LED finder that can't be swapped out for a real finderscope. The optics are better, and the aperture is wide enough to clearly see the major cloud bands on Jupiter, but without a decent finder I spend half the night hunting. I wind up just loosening both the RA and DEC knobs and manhandling the bastard like a Dob.

MY FUCKING BINOCULARS ARE 75mm! Tell me that "Simmons" is code for "Made it myself"?

My Galileoscope is a 50 mm refractor. It's small, but the objective lens is very good, and it was $30. I can see the bands on Jupiter, the polar cap on Mars, and just start to make out Saturn's rings (they look like bumps on either side). The size isn't great, but most cheap telescopes are both small and have abysmally bad lenses. This one at least doesn't suffer from the latter.

jbode, I have an Orion 114 mm reflector on an equatorial mount with an LED finder, and I can't say I've had any trouble finding my way around. I use either a laptop running Stellarium or my phone and Google Sky to get a sense of the sky, manually orient the scope, tighten the RA and DEC knobs and do the last bit of alignment with the fine knob. With regard to the LED finder: mine came with instructions for calibrating it very precisely, and I'm sure that makes all the difference.

I'm not suggesting anyone not start with binoculars; it's just that I didn't, and I've been happy with my amateur experience.

I remember being told to buy binoculars first so I can get to know the sky but I just jumped in to buying my Orion AstroView 6. As long as you're aware that what you will see is not going to be anywhere in the realm of something like APOD then I would encourage buying one, but I would stay away from department store telescopes. Most of the enjoyment I get out of it is getting to know the sky through the telescope, which is a great way to kill hours on a clear night even in the city.

Based on my own experience, I can tell you that whatever telescope you buy you will probably suffer from aperture envy pretty quickly. The only thing I regret is not saving up and going with an 8" reflector. Chances are that if I purchased a 8" I'd be saying that I regretted not saving up to buy a 10". You have to start somewhere and portability is something you want to consider since you will want to leave the city at some point to get better skies. I think anything bigger than an 8" would be more a burden than anything else especially if this is going to be just a casual hobby for you. If you are only going to be viewing from your backyard then I think an 8" dob is a good way to go. One in your price range

If I may threadjack...seeing the Jupiter and Venus alignment so clearly got me interested in learning more about amateur astronomy. Thanks for the Google Sky recommendation. I'll be taking it out to a dark spot tonight. What good sites can help me learn more about star gazing?

I researched and researched and opted for a 7 inch mak on a goto mount. Massive overkill in that the gear was very large and heavy and difficult to set up without a dedicated location. This was on the order of thousands of dollars (fortunately, it has a proper location now but I am rarely able to use it).

So then I got a great pair of Leica binoculars, 12x50s. Great binoculars for sure...but too heavy to hand hold and not have everything bouncing all over the place.

So then I got a Starblast 4.5 inch reflector made by Orion. This was a not bad way to go, instantly setup, decent'ish aperture. Catch with that was that the eyepieces were pokey (good ones cost significant fractions of your budget) but overall, a very good way to go if I were starting over from scratch.

Then I got what I think is realistically the best bang for the buck and most used piece of equipment. Its also by far the most popular with any friends/neighbours that come around - a Sky Window made in the US by Tricomachine. This thing is great. There is no setup at all, just plunk it down on a table. No neck strain, no binocular shake and its dead simple to use/aim. The only downside is it binocular based. That said, as long as you have a universal mount screw in the center of your binoculars, you can use them - and in theory get some large aperture ones of high power. I wish I had done this first - the pain in the backside for me is that my Leica's won't work as they don't have the central mounting hole.

Anyways, my advice would be Sky Window first. All those fancy pictures you see on the net are not what you are going to see out of any scope; even ones worth thousands of dollars. You will see monochrome blobs at best (M31 for instance). To really get what you see on the net, you need tracking mounts and ccd imaging and now you are in for piles of cash - easily multitudes of your budget. You can get dirt cheap tracking mounts with dirt cheap imagers but even then its more than your budget and they will be very mediocre performers imho.

From my point of view, one problem with dobsonians and newtonians is that they are really awkward for terrestrial viewing if you want to look a stuff other than celestial during daytime, birds for example. And they are bulky and prone to dusty optics. If it's too bulky for easy transportation and setup, you won't take it out as often. That's why I prefer a decent F/5 short-tube refractor as a first scope. By switching to a 45-degree diagonal, you can use it for birding and use the 90-degree diagonal for objects near the zenith. A STR also tends to be more portable and later you can piggyback it on a larger scope as a viewfinder. Plus with a low-mag eyepiece, you can almost get down to binocular levels in terms of angular distance that can be viewed, meaning you can almost fit the Andromeda galaxy and other large faint fuzzies with a low-power objective. Fit in a real ultrawide eyepiece later and you can see vast expanses of the night sky.

Holy crap...what exactly makes this worth $250?! It seems to just be a flat mirror and a telescope mount, something I could assemble myself for $25. I'm sure there's more to it, but what exactly makes this mount worth more than the binoculars I'd be using with it?

Holy crap...what exactly makes this worth $250?! It seems to just be a flat mirror and a telescope mount, something I could assemble myself for $25. I'm sure there's more to it, but what exactly makes this mount worth more than the binoculars I'd be using with it?

I would say 'not having to crick your neck'?

From the website:

Sky Window Web site Blurb wrote:

Prevents neck strain and vibration.

Allows observer to be seated while "looking down" at the sky in total comfort.

Keeps binoculars fixed at a "microscope" angle while observing from horizon to zenith. Observer's head never moves !

Really, amateur astronomy is nuts. I've done it, and enjoyed it, but it's a very very pale second to viewing APOD, looking at those astonishing efforts by people who live in DARK areas, or those people who use post-processing to 'remove' the light pollution'. Hours and hours of effort. As many others have said, the best night-sky experience is with the aid of a good pair of binoculars and a night-vision-sensitive computer guidance system that shows you 'where to look'.

Holy crap...what exactly makes this worth $250?! It seems to just be a flat mirror and a telescope mount, something I could assemble myself for $25. I'm sure there's more to it, but what exactly makes this mount worth more than the binoculars I'd be using with it?

You could make one...if you are handy I guess. That said, if you want to eliminate the things that make this product work so well you will need thick aluminum (expensive) to keep it light but stable enough to support your binocs without shake, a very solid mount figured out as well as a solid mount for the pivoting mirror. Any of those go wrong and you will have a wobby setup that will just be a pain the butt of frustration.

Or, just buy one thats tried and tested and genuinely works if you got the cash. Its so much nicer to sit out on the dock on the picnic table sitting down and looking down like you are eating dinner yet looking up at the sky with instant response to tilt and pivot and two eyes as opposed to one (with a scope). Setup is...5 seconds? As I said, everyone - and I mean everyone - that has been up at the cottage and looking at stars has preferred this to the bare bones scope. They both serve their purposes of course.

In retrospect, I could have saved a lot of money just getting one of these first as I simply have not had the time to properly use much more advanced gear. Once you start getting fancy the costs just explode. Got a nice big mirror, woohoo! Now its heavy and you need a heavy base to support it and its a pain to setup. Got that sorted, cheap eyepieces suck and decent ones run 100-400 a pop. Want to learn about collimation specific to your scope and get good at doing; fine but yet more 'tweaking' between setting up and actually observing anything. Don't like that it takes a long time for your lovely large mirror to reach ambient temperature, sorry, wait. Don't like that dew forms, time to buy a dew warmer and get that all powered up. You got a goto mount, got power somehow? Want those sexy pictures you see on the net - you have to want to enjoy getting your setup perfect and then get into astrophotography with all the technicalities that entails. Now you have stacks of photos, time to buy a photostacking program (could be free, dunno but you get my point).

I would have waited until I had a lot more time on my hands before going down the big gun gear route - the Sky Window should have been my first purchase. YMMV, just saying. The hobby is a geeks wet dream and the gear lust/wishes can literally never end. But at the end of the day, if I don't use the gear as its a pain in the butt to setup and use, what good is it.